Here is a thought-provoking article from Yale University. It states, in part,
Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.
The essay also suggests that climate advocacy and research have become too intertwined, with environmentalists seeking to represent the science as “apocalyptic, imminent, and certain.” The science has been harmed as a result, they argue, stating:
Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.
The only substantial disagreement with the essay is the “need” to decarbonize. If we aren’t sure about ‘global warming’ then CO2 levels are moot — in fact, one can make a reasonable argument that more CO2 is better.
For me, nuclear and solar make tremendous sense on their own regardless of carbon considerations.
Hat tip: Watts Up With That.